Outcast_Searcher wrote:GHung wrote:Predicting the behavior of hyper-complex systems is nearly impossible. Predicting trends, not so much.
This is pretty amusing, coming from the fast crash doomer crowd. The cornies and the moderates have been saying all along, that the trend toward slow growth favored by the system is likely to continue for a long time.
And month after month, year after year, the constant alarmist cries for short term crashes of the system have been proven wrong, again and again.
So why are your intuitions about feedbacks, small percentages being enough, etc. to crash the whole system to be believed any more than all the other assertions over the history of short-term-crashism (for want of a better name)?
Cog wrote:Doomers=Death cult. Lets crash the global economy and kill billions but lets not say that directly. You want to help out on over-population and a negative impact on the environment, stop eating.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:So I think where we disagree is magnitude. Where do you come up with 5% reduction in economic activity over time (everyone won't do this at once clearly) will crash the entire system?
Why couldn't it be 20%? Or even 40% if it's somewhat gradual? People doing this will clearly be reducing their debt, BTW.
I think we can put some parameters on this. Clearly 100% will do it, by definition. 2% wont. (We had about a 2% global reduction in the 2008-9 crash, rapidly and involuntarily. It was scary and crashed the stock markets about 40%. People were worried about a possible depression. But all it caused was a deep recession, and some scaling back.) And for most people, more than perhaps 30%, or 50% at most would induce real hardship (hunger, lack of heat/cooling, transport, medical care, etc.) And people aren't going to do THAT en masse, unless they have no choice.
Do you have anything more than a gut feel that 5% would do it? (And complaining about things like "all the debt" doesn't come close to justifying 5%, without real specifics as to how/why the dominos would fall).
onlooker wrote:I think you have us confused with some other people. We are trying to avert the premature death of billions.
Cheers
And if you'd really like to get a taste of your crash paradise, then why wouldn't you start from yourself. Go to the forest to settle there, cut all (I empasise - ALL) ties with the global economic system, including no tools, no electricity, no housing - nothing, and lead us by example from out there.
Cog wrote:I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there.
Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go.
Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.
Hawkcreek wrote:Cog wrote:I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies.
...
You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.
Excellent, Cog. You cheered me up. Thanks.
GHung wrote:
Typical silly hyperbolic absolutist response.
Global Trumpism seen harming efforts to reduce climate pollution
But if it ends up greatly diminishing the capacity of global industrial civilization (= planetary death machine), perhaps it would be worth it?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests